While I am also generally in favor of the option to create games with point restrictions, I agree with the OP and apparently TFO that this is quite a bit different. This just appears to save users time in doing something that they are allowed to do anyway.

darth emperor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Shadow Assassin wrote:has this already been suggested or something? im not really getting any responses....

Many times. Unfortunately, there are always some weak-ass excuses that don't hold water about why this would be bad for the site, and then the suggestion is closed.

No, what he is proposing is another thing, because it only searches... in point of fact, there was an addon that had that option. That add-on also had the option to filter games based, on how many more players needed a game to start

Never heard of that add-on. What is/was it? You use "was." Is it gone?

I am in the process of stickying a couple of threads that are the more common rejected suggestions. I wanted to find the oldest one that I could find, and sure enough, there was a version of this suggestion from way back in 2006. I doubt I'll work all the way back from there, but I will be putting some of the more recent ones in here.

Personally, I'm not against the idea of this suggestion in some form. But as it stands now, it appears that there's no chance of it being implemented after 6 years of being rejected.

I have. So there is no chance, based on the mass of C&A cases that this would actually relieve, for this to be accepted as a suggestion in some form? The idea that it will create rank segregation or somehow leave people with few too games or opponents to choose from (if done properly) has been thoroughly debunked.

This would be a tremendous boon to the C&A mods.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

I have. So there is no chance, based on the mass of C&A cases that this would actually relieve, for this to be accepted as a suggestion in some form? The idea that it will create rank segregation or somehow leave people with few too games or opponents to choose from (if done properly) has been thoroughly debunked.

This would be a tremendous boon to the C&A mods.

It is my understanding that lack has been against this idea from the start. You can see (in the edited OP) that he was against it 6 years ago, and I have no reason to believe that he has changed his mind. I believe that while I was merging these that I read through all 39 pages of this topic. I do not recall the "idea that it will create rank segregation or somehow leave people with too few games" being "thoroughly debunked." I'm not really sure how it could be debunked ... I'm not sure how you would even test that. I recognize that the proposition can't be proven either, but I don't think you can call it debunked.

As far as C&A cases go, the only ones that I see this helping are the ones where someone says "I can't control who joins my games." That's not an insignificant amount of cases, but the high profile farming cases of late have not been about this. Also, what if someone sets up games that only allow cooks through cadets to join? You'd have a whole new type of C&A case. If you implement the suggestion, so that can't be done, then you have to figure out where to draw the line. What if a high ranking officer sets up games with complicated settings, but only opens them for the levels right below officer? Would that be considered abuse?

The basic suggestion suffers from potential for abuse and potential for rank segregation. More complicated versions suffer from their own complexity and the potential for unintended consequences and new forms of abuse.

This suggestion is in rejected because in 6 years there is no indication that the owner of the website wants to do this, but also because his underlying concerns arguably have some validity. Unless there is some sort of sea change, that's where it's going to stay.

Personally, I've come out in favor of this idea. I don't really care too much about it (as in there are numerous other things I'd rather see coded in). But I understand the counterarguments, and I understand that the powers that be don't want this. As a moderator I'm basically just filing this in its appropriate place. So unless I'm told to do otherwise, this is where it will stay.

Forums exist, made by members to allow players with scores of 1800+ 2000+ 2500+ etc to create games amongst similar ranked players so CC should take note of this and provide the option which is clearly wanted by the players

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

I dont think this will be exclusion but will benefit the site. Players can play similar skilled players and progress to the next "tier" if good enough. Its quite frustrating when you do start to climb up the ranks, make a game and loads of lower ranked players join, especially when they just give up, suicide into a particular player, ruin the game for all. With this option implemented it will allow players to play similar levels easier and improve the whole experience. also as it will be an option players can still have a fully open match if they wish and are not points foucsed, just enjoy the game. I think this is a no brainer and is clearly something a lot of users want hence the popular forums for it. With it made as an opyion too it prevents abuse as well and keeps the CC community happier all round

though - " What if a high ranking officer sets up games with complicated settings, but only opens them for the levels right below officer? Would that be considered abuse? "

This is not what i suggested. I was suggsting that if i have a rank of say 1800 then because i have attained that level then i can make a 1800 + only game. thus eliminating the possible abuse / farming above...My point was i dont want low levels joining my games as quite often their stupid play ruins it for the rest and this is why the their is a forum area dedicated to these type s of organised games.......also the objection quoted there already exists as thats what lots of top ranked players prey on

though - " What if a high ranking officer sets up games with complicated settings, but only opens them for the levels right below officer? Would that be considered abuse? "

This is not what i suggested. I was suggsting that if i have a rank of say 1800 then because i have attained that level then i can make a 1800 + only game. thus eliminating the possible abuse / farming above...My point was i dont want low levels joining my games as quite often their stupid play ruins it for the rest and this is why the their is a forum area dedicated to these type s of organised games.......also the objection quoted there already exists as thats what lots of top ranked players prey on

That is one sentence of a 39 page topic. Officer only, Officer mess, enlisted only, etc. game options are also lumped in here along with the ones that are based on points like 1800+. Ranks are based on points, so it's just another way of saying the same thing.

AslanTheKing wrote:And certainly somebody below 500 will be somebody's Bit* ch to destroy a game, and beeing a bad sport in many other ways.

How can you say that? I feel like this is discriminatory. I am sure there are some people that are below 500 and are pleasant to play with.

AslanTheKing wrote:And get rid of players who havent logged in for the last 5 Years, they might be dead by now and definitely not looking for a Premium.

People die after 5 years???? The reason for never deleting accounts is because of the multi-rule. If they come back after 5-10 years, they cannot make a brand new account. They must play the old one they created.

AslanTheKing wrote:And certainly somebody below 500 will be somebody's Bit* ch to destroy a game, and beeing a bad sport in many other ways.

How can you say that? I feel like this is discriminatory. I am sure there are some people that are below 500 and are pleasant to play with.

AslanTheKing wrote:And get rid of players who havent logged in for the last 5 Years, they might be dead by now and definitely not looking for a Premium.

People die after 5 years???? The reason for never deleting accounts is because of the multi-rule. If they come back after 5-10 years, they cannot make a brand new account. They must play the old one they created.

AslanTheKing wrote:And certainly somebody below 500 will be somebody's Bit* ch to destroy a game, and beeing a bad sport in many other ways.

How can you say that? I feel like this is discriminatory. I am sure there are some people that are below 500 and are pleasant to play with.

AslanTheKing wrote:And get rid of players who havent logged in for the last 5 Years, they might be dead by now and definitely not looking for a Premium.

People die after 5 years???? The reason for never deleting accounts is because of the multi-rule. If they come back after 5-10 years, they cannot make a brand new account. They must play the old one they created.

After 5 Years i have changed my Internetprovider about 5 times, ever thought about that?

New Internet is a new Eye P Adress, u didnt know that?

I used to roll the daizzFeel the fear in my enemy´s eyesListen as the crowd would sing:Long live the Army Of Kings !

Besides u can have an account at work, at your girlfriend, at your second girlfriend, at your third girlfriend, at your 4th girlfriend, at your 5th girlfriend at your girlfriend, at your second girlfriend, at your third girlfriend, at your 4th girlfriend, at your 5th girlfriend at your girlfriend, at your second girlfriend, at your third girlfriend, at your 4th girlfriend, at your 155th girlfriendand then u ran out of money

I used to roll the daizzFeel the fear in my enemy´s eyesListen as the crowd would sing:Long live the Army Of Kings !

and u can hack into your neighbors hotlan, if u live in new york, thats 200 neighbors? wowthat means if u play 24 hour games- plenty time to be Mr. A, Mr. B, Mr. C....ups i shouldnt have told u that, can't delete this post anymore, too late

I used to roll the daizzFeel the fear in my enemy´s eyesListen as the crowd would sing:Long live the Army Of Kings !